MHB Radians to Degrees, Minutes, Seconds

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on converting radians to degrees, minutes, and seconds, specifically for the values 0.47623 and 0.25412. The conversion process for 0.47623 is detailed, starting with calculating the degree equivalent using the formula 0.47623 × (180°/π), resulting in approximately 27.29°. This is further broken down into degrees, minutes, and seconds, yielding a final result of approximately 27° 17' 9.49''. Participants express curiosity about potentially easier methods for such conversions, while acknowledging the straightforwardness of the presented manual approach. The conversation highlights the balance between manual calculations and the use of technology for conversions.
mathdad
Messages
1,280
Reaction score
0
Reduce the following numbers of radians to degrees, minutes, and seconds.

(a). 0.47623.

(b). 0.25412.

Can someone work out (a) in steps? I can then use it as a guide to solve (b).
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Okay, here is how I would work a):

First, let's get a decimal approximation for the number of degrees, with a good amount of precision:

$$0.47623\cdot\frac{180^{\circ}}{\pi}=\frac{85.7214}{\pi}^{\circ}\approx27.285969077515198^{\circ}$$

Okay, now we think of this as:

$$0.47623\approx27^{\circ}+0.285969077515198^{\circ}\cdot\frac{60'}{1^{\circ}}\approx27^{\circ}+17.15814465091188'$$

Continuing:

$$0.47623\approx27^{\circ}+17' + 0.15814465091188'\cdot\frac{60''}{1'}\approx27^{\circ}+17'+9.4886790547128''$$

Using standard notation and rounding some, we may write:

$$0.47623\approx27^{\circ}17'9.49''$$
 
MarkFL said:
Okay, here is how I would work a):

First, let's get a decimal approximation for the number of degrees, with a good amount of precision:

$$0.47623\cdot\frac{180^{\circ}}{\pi}=\frac{85.7214}{\pi}^{\circ}\approx27.285969077515198^{\circ}$$

Okay, now we think of this as:

$$0.47623\approx27^{\circ}+0.285969077515198^{\circ}\cdot\frac{60'}{1^{\circ}}\approx27^{\circ}+17.15814465091188'$$

Continuing:

$$0.47623\approx27^{\circ}+17' + 0.15814465091188'\cdot\frac{60''}{1'}\approx27^{\circ}+17'+9.4886790547128''$$

Using standard notation and rounding some, we may write:

$$0.47623\approx27^{\circ}17'9.49''$$

There's got to be an easier way to do this, right?
 
RTCNTC said:
There's got to be an easier way to do this, right?

There could be, but that's the most straightforward way I know to do such a conversion by hand (i.e. without using a calculator programmed to do such conversions).
 
MarkFL said:
There could be, but that's the most straightforward way I know to do such a conversion by hand (i.e. without using a calculator programmed to do such conversions).

I recall watching a high school teacher on youtube.com using a totally different method.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Back
Top